Posted on

Ex Parte Jung De-Designated as Informative by PTAB

A previous post discussed Ex parte Jung, which was designated as Informative by the PTAB on July 10, 2018.  In a bulletin posted on August 7, 2018, the PTAB states that: It has come to PTAB’s attention that the decision has not been read as intended. For example, the designation was not intended to reflect new or changed policies with respect to claim construction. As a result, in order to avoid any confusion, the decision has been de-designated and removed from the list of informative decisions. The case remains a routine decision of the Board… This case nonetheless raised an interesting discussion of SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTv Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004), which interpreted language in the form of “at least one of A and B” to mean at least one of A and at least one of B, as well as the line of subsequent cases discussed in the…

Read more

Posted on

“At Least One of” Ex Parte Opinion Designated as Informative by PTAB

The PTAB interpreted claim language in the form of “at least one of A and B” to mean at least one of A and at least one of B in Ex parte Dong-Shin Jung et al. (Appeal No. 2016/008290, designated Informative on July 10, 2018).  The claim, in pertinent part, at issue reads: A method for playing back a scene using Universal Plug and Play (UPnP), comprising: [A.] sending, by a control point, a request for a scene to be played back to a media server that stores Audio/Video (AV) content; [B.] receiving, by the control point, one or more scene objects comprising the scene to be played back from the media server in response to the request, each scene object including metadata representing at least one of [i.] a precedence relation indicating the scene object’s location in a sequence of scene objects and [ii.] a connection relation indicating one…

Read more

Posted on

Reversal of Parts Not Obvious in the Absence of Supporting Evidence

The ex parte Appellant successfully argued that the Examiner had not established a prima facie case of obviousness by failing to adequately explain why one skilled in the art would have made the proposed modification in Ex parte Tisol (Appeal No. 2017-007929, decided April 25, 2018). The claim at issue is reproduced below with emphasis added: A system for manufacturing a two-part fastener, the system comprising: a fastener-molding housing including a fastener mold having a first mold section connected to a second mold section through a flash connection mold section, wherein the fastener mold is configured to receive fastener-forming material to form a pre-engaged fastener having a first fastener portion within the first mold section and a second fastener portion within the second mold section, wherein the first fastener portion is temporarily secured to the second fastener portion through a flash connection portion formed within the flash connection mold section;…

Read more

Posted on

Coffin Patent Lives on after IPR

The Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial & Appeal Board that the claim language “form a casket body” was a structural limitation, not an intended use, and affirmed the final written decision of PTAB finding that the inter parte review petitioner failed to demonstrate that the claims were unpatentable.  Matthews International Corp. v. Vandor Corp. (Fed. Cir., decided March 27, 2018). The patent at issue is US8,104,151 and claim 1 reads as follows, with emphasis added: 1. A casket arrangement having a first configuration and a second configuration, comprising: a bottom panel formed of a pliable material; side panels formed intrinsically with the bottom panel of the pliable material, each side panel including a lower section and an upper section foldably attached thereto, the lower section extending vertically upward from the bottom panel, the upper section in the first configuration extending upward from the lower section and in the…

Read more

Posted on

Examiner’s Redundancy Rationale was Insufficient to Support Obviousness Rejection

The ex parte Appellant successfully argued that, since the primary reference already taught fastening an element with screws, the Examiner failed to adequately show that one would have also fastened the element with a spring element because the spring element would be merely duplicative of the screws in Ex parte Pinon (Appeal 2017/005566, decided March 9, 2018).  While this is just one of the successful arguments in this Appeal, it provides some interesting discussion. The Examiner had found that the primary reference taught all of the elements of the claim except “the clamp comprises a spring element,” as claimed in claim 1.  The primary reference, shown immediately below, discloses a battery module having a clamp 40a that is fastened to the plate 30 with screws.    Since the screws of the primary reference are not a “spring element,” as claimed in the claim, the Examiner found a secondary reference disclosing a…

Read more