custom search
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2111 Ex Parte Sitzmann et al 11694000 - (D) HUME 103 RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP SPITTLE, MATTHEW D
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3737 Ex Parte Frisa et al 11576487 - (D) SNEDDEN 103 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS HUNTLEY, DANIEL CARROLL
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
VACATED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2684 2612 ENOCEAN GMBH, Appellant, v. FACE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee. 2012-1645 10/304,121 7,084,529 10/188,633 PCT/GB01/00901 PCT/DE01/01965 PROST claims invoke 112(6)/no priority Foley & Lardner LLP; Byers Law Group BROWN, VERNAL U; EDWARDS JR, TIMOTHY
It is well established that the use of the term “means” triggers a rebuttable presumption that § 112, ¶ 6 governs the construction of the claim term. Inventio AG v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Ams. Corp., 649 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Conversely, where, as here, the claim language does not recite the term “means,” we presume that the limitation does not invoke § 112, ¶ 6. Id. (citing Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). However, this presumption can be overcome if the challenger demonstrates that “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” Id. (citing CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). The correct inquiry is “whether skilled artisans, after reading the patent, would conclude that a claim limitation is so devoid of structure that the drafter constructively engaged in means-plus-function claiming.” Inventio, 649 F.3d at 1357. Therefore, “[u]ltimately, whether claim language invokes § 112, ¶ 6 depends on how those skilled in the art would understand the structural significance of that claim language.” Id. at 1360.
Personalized Media Communications LLC v. ITC, 161 F.3d 696, 48 USPQ2d 1880 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 2181
personalized HARMON 5: 234, 235; 6: 267, 357; 19: 423; 20: 181
DONNER 10: 757; 11: 16, 141, 142, 184, 200
CCS HARMON 6: 24, 35, 17, 225; 19: 416
DONNER 3: 465; 10: 1040, 1044-46; 11: 180-84
SEARCH
PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Li & Cai
Showing posts with label personalized. Show all posts
Showing posts with label personalized. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)