PTAB Reverses Rejection Because Patent Examiner Applied a “Broader Than Reasonable Interpretation”

Patent examiners often rely on claim interpretations that seem ridiculous to applicants. Here is a case showing that applicants should push back in such situations when claims are rejected under a “broadest reasonable interpretation.” Moreover, the case shows applicants that, contrary to examiners’ admonitions that the specification will not be read into the claims, clear definitions in a specification should be given weight and can be used to overcome alleged “broadest reasonable interpretations.”

In In re Talwar, Appeal No. 2013-010521, Application no. 12/248,648 (PTAB Nov. 16, 2015), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversed a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because the examiner’s interpretation of the phrase “service level violation” went beyond the broadest reasonable interpretation. The rejected independent claim recited:

1. A method of cross-layer power management in a multi-layer system, the method comprising:

determining whether there is a service level violation for an application running on a hardware platform; and

controlling power consumption of the hardware platform in response to the service level violation.

The Specification stated that a “service level violation” occurred “when a threshold for a predetermined application metric is received. The thresholds are often described as performance goals in an agreement between a customer and a service provider, i.e., a service level agreement (SLA)." The PTAB concluded that

this passage clearly defines a service level violation as a threshold level for a metric that measures the performance of an application. We further conclude that the plain meaning of "violation" is that the threshold indicates an undesired condition, i.e., a failure to meet a goal for the metric. Therefore, we conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of "service level violation," in light of Appellants' Specification, is a threshold for a predetermined application metric indicating a violation of (i.e., a failure to meet) a performance goal for the application metric.

The prior art did not “disclose controlling power consumption based on a determination of "service level violations," as properly construed.” Instead, the prior art disclosed re-balancing a server load when power utilization exceeded a predetermined threshold. Its open-ended list of examples of a utilization metric all “relate[d] to utilization of server resources,” and “none relate[d] to application metrics or a failure to meet a performance goal measured by an application metric.” Therefore, once claim 1 was properly construed, the reference did not anticipate the claim.


Upcoming Webinar

Practical Considerations of IPR Estoppel
June 22, 2017 at 12:00 pm EDT
In the webinar, Bryan Hart will discuss estoppel stemming from inter partes review petitions. After an IPR, what invalidity arguments can the petitioner still use at trial? Bryan will analyze the Federal Circuit decision Shaw Industries Group, Inc.…Register