• Federal Circuit Allows USPTO to Defend Appeal from Inter Partes Reexamination

    In Knowles Elecs. LLC v. Iancu, Knowles appealed the inter partes reexamination decision of the Board, which affirmed an examiner’s finding that certain claims were anticipated while other claims would have been obvious over various prior art references. The third-party requester declined to defend the judgment in its favor. The Director of the USPTO intervened to defend the Board’s decision, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143. On appeal, the Court permitted the Director to intervene and affirmed the…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 冠詞(不定冠詞・定冠詞):やや変わった例

                            目次はこちら

    冠詞(不定冠詞・定冠詞):やや変わった例

    (不定冠詞+序数)
    $$ A first embodiment of the present invention will now be described with reference to FIGS. 1 to 8. / ここから、本発明の第1の実施形態を、図1~図8を参照しながら説明する。(USPA01046481): a first

    $$ These rod sets extend from a first region maintained at a first pressure into a second region maintained at a second pressure. / これらのロッド・セットは、第1圧力に維持された第1領域から、第2圧力に維持された第2領域内へ向かって延在する。(USPA01010354): a first / a second

    $$ Desirably a third release sheet covers the remainder of the adhesive of the dressing. / 望ましくは第3の剥離シートはドレッシングの接着剤の残りの部分を覆っている。(USP5968000): a third

    $$ Preferably the cylindrical body includes a first and a second end for connection in a work string. (USP7628213): a first and a second sth

    $$ FIG. 1 shows an expanded view of a locking means of the present invention in use with a first and a second tubular structure; (USP7637684): a first and a second sth

    $$ Each well 70 is positioned at a different intersection of a first and second grid conductor. (USP6002207): a first and second sth

    (THE ANOTHER)
    $$ According the another embodiment of the present invention, a power distribution system unit for an aircraft having a housing comprising a first housing part and a second housing part rotatably connected to one another by a hinge is provided. (USP8753129)

    $$ An apparatus as claimed in claim 9, further comprising another shutter arrangement disposed adjacent the another optical imaging system. (USP5616912)

    (THE EACH)
    $$ The each hinge member is preferably a helical spring. / 各ヒンジ部材はコイルばねであることが好ましい。(USP8777514)

    $$ Similarly, in FIG. 5, and FIG. 6, the closed group which has been used as the basis for the mean face used in the caricaturing process are illustrated by the highlighted facial images at the bottom of the each window. (USP7646395)

    $$ An electron source as claimed in claim 8, wherein the each channel is tapered.(USP6002207)

    (AN APPARATUS AND METHOD)
    ("an apparatus and a method"のパターンは用いられないようである)

    $$ The present disclosure relates to an apparatus and method for administering medicament for inhalation by a patient and, more particularly, to a dry powdered medicament inhaler. (USP7540282)

    $$ In accordance with the present invention, an apparatus and method for reducing noise in a vehicle is provided. (USPA02076059)

    (THE APPARATUS AND METHOD)
    ("the apparatus and the method"のパターンは用いられないようである)

    $$ The apparatus and method of the invention have been optimised to produce an oxygen concentration of low ppm levels. / 本発明の装置および方法は低いppm レベルの酸素濃度を生成するのに最適である。(USP5436086)

    $$ The apparatus and method of the invention has several advantageous uses. (USP6102137)

    (THE FIRST AND THE SECOND)
    $$ The lock arrangement as defined in claim 11 in which the cam includes a first and a second stop corresponding to the first and the second positions of the output element. (USPA02074809)

    $$ The apparatus and the method of this Application are particularly suitable for use with RF driven antennae. / 本願の装置と方法は無線周波駆動のアンテナ群を伴った使用に特に適している。(USP6458239)

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • CAFC does organic chemistry enantiomers in SUMITOMO case; "organic chemistry textbooks as irrelevant"

    Initially, the CAFC noted:


    This Hatch-Waxman appeal requires us to construe
    the scope of a claim depicting a compound’s chemical
    structure. Although the compound can exist in two different
    three-dimensional orientations that are mirror images
    of each other [enantiomers], only one is portrayed in the claim. The
    district court construed the claim to cover the two threedimensional
    orientations in isolation—both the one shown
    in the claim and its mirror image—as well as mixtures of
    the two in any ratio. The parties then stipulated to
    infringement and the entry of an injunction. We agree
    that, at a minimum, the claim encompasses the specific
    orientation depicted.

    (…)

    As explained below, the plain claim language and
    specification demonstrate that, at a minimum, claim 14
    covers what it depicts: the (–)-enantiomer. This suffices
    to resolve the parties’ dispute because Appellants concede
    that the district court’s judgment can be affirmed if we
    conclude that claim 14 at least covers the (–)-enantiomer.
    See Oral Arg. at 8:40–9:10, http://oralarguments.
    cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=2017-1798.mp3.

    Of past history:


    This outcome comports with previous cases rejecting
    similar attempts to limit claims to racemic mixtures.
    Although differences in the patents’ specifications make it
    such that they are not factually identical to the current
    appeal, this does not detract from the convincing intrinsic
    evidence we have required in cases confining otherwiseunrestricted
    claims to racemic mixtures. For example, in
    Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Ranbaxy sought
    to limit a claim depicting a specific three-dimensional
    orientation to a racemic mixture. 457 F.3d 1284, 1288–89
    (Fed. Cir. 2006). The compound at issue had four isomers:
    R-trans, S-trans, R-cis, and S-cis.1 The specification
    disclaimed the R-cis and S-cis isomers, and it only disclosed
    reaction sequences that produced racemic mixtures.
    Ranbaxy argued that the specification’s disclosure,
    combined with the convention that a racemate is often
    represented by drawing one of the constituent enantiomers,
    justified limiting the claim to a racemic mixture.
    We rejected these arguments because the claim itself
    depicted the R-trans enantiomer, and unlike other claims
    in the same patent, it was not limited by the “trans-(±)”
    designation. Id. at 1289.

    (…)

    Appellants’ claim construction arguments conflict
    with Pfizer and other precedent because they seek to
    import limitations from the specification into the claim.

    Of textbooks:

    Finally, Appellants’ organic chemistry textbooks and
    expert testimony do not compel a different result. Extrinsic
    evidence is, in general, “less significant than the
    intrinsic record in determining ‘the legally operative
    meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
    (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d
    858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). This is particularly so here,
    where the intrinsic record demonstrates that claim 14’s
    structure covers at least the (–)-enantiomer. See Vitronics
    Corp., 90 F.3d at 1583 (“In most situations, an analysis of
    the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in
    a disputed claim term. In such circumstances, it is improper
    to rely on extrinsic evidence.”). In any event, we
    see no clear error in the district court’s rejection of the
    organic chemistry textbooks as irrelevant or contradictory
    to Appellants’ construction. See Teva, 135 S. Ct. at 841.
    And while Appellants’ expert contends that it is conventional
    in the art to use a single enantiomer as shorthand
    for a racemic mixture, he does not state that a person of
    ordinary skill would always understand the depiction of a
    single enantiomer to exclude the very enantiomer depicted.
    See J.A. 1015–16 ¶ 27

    Continue Reading ...