REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12752581 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC SCHNIZER, RICHARD A
1674 Ex Parte Gleave et al 12490018 - (D) MILLS 102/103 Larson & Anderson, LLC BOWMAN, AMY HUDSON
Construing a means-plus-function claim limitation is a two-step process. First, the claim must be analyzed to determine whether the claim language actually invokes the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. See Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“If a claim element contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function, th[e] court presumes that element is a means-plus-function element under § 112, ¶ 6. . . . That presumption falls, however, if the claim itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function.”). The second step is to “determine what structures have been disclosed in the specification that correspond to the means for performing that function.” Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “[S]tructure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim. This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112, ¶ 6.” B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A means-plus-function claim “shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that “the 'broadest reasonable interpretation' that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six of 35 USC § 112.” MPEP § 2181. “Accordingly, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” (id.) This “sets a limit on how broadly the PTO may construe means-plus-function language under the rubric of reasonable interpretation.” (emphasis added.) In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Thus, as articulated in MPEP 2181, “the USPTO must apply 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph in appropriate cases, and give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of and consistent with the written description of the invention in the application.” [Emphasis added.] (See also, Br. 3.)
A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as a “corresponding structure” if the specification or the prosecution history “clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” B. Braun Med., Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). With means-plus-function claiming, the narrower the disclosed structure in the specification, the narrower the claim coverage. Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 732 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Envirco Corp. v. Clestra Cleanroom, Inc., 209 F.3d 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1449 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 2181
Kemco Sales Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 54 USPQ2d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) , 2103,2183, 2184
B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs, 124 F.3d 1419, 43 USPQ2d 1896 (Fed. Cir. 1997) 2163, 2181, 2182
Donaldson, In re, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) 2111.01, 2114, 2181, 2182
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Harrington et al 11459371 - (D) FREDMAN 101/103 Basch & Nickerson LLP QUADER, FAZLUL
2174 Ex Parte Chen et al 10427279 - (D) HOMERE 103 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. International Business Machines Corporation NGUYEN, LE V
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3766 Ex Parte Deno et al 11116569 - (D) HULSE 112(1)/103 Medtronic, Inc. (CRDM) BAYS, PAMELA M
3788 Ex Parte Livingston 11938849 - (D) MORRISON 102/103 GE ENERGY GENERAL ELECTRIC C/O ERNEST G. CUSICK REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2491 Ex Parte Kulkarni 11549023 - (D) WINSOR 103 103 Siemens Corporation EDWARDS, LINGLAN E
Whether a prior art reference is analogous to the claimed invention such that it qualifies as prior art for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a question of fact. Innovention Toys, LLC v. MGA Entm't., Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In KSR, the Supreme Court “direct[ed] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 402); see KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 420. In an obviousness analysis,
[t]wo separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Determining whether art is in the same field of endeavor as Appellant’s claimed invention “requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention's subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325. Although the Examiner is correct that the Examiner’s claimed invention and the cited references are all broadly directed to computer programming (Ans. 24), Subramanian diverges substantially from the “the embodiments, function, and structure of [Appellant’s] claimed invention,” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, and the other cited prior art.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) 2141, , 2145, 2216, 2242, 2286, 2616, 2642, 2686.04
Bigio, In re, 381 F.3d 1320, 72 USPQ2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2141.01(a)
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2887 Ex Parte Klapka et al 10497852 - (D) NEW 103 103 37 CFR 41.50(b) 103 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (NV) WALSH, DANIEL I
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3763 Ex Parte Barry et al 11451634 - (D) PER CURIAM 102 102/103 MAYER & WILLIAMS PC BOSQUES, EDELMIRA
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1777 Ex Parte Nagghappan 12904286 - (D) MURPHY 103 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC KEYWORTH, PETER
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2441 Ex Parte Lee et al 12100173 - (D) KRIVAK 103 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. BATURAY, ALICIA
2448 Ex Parte Bowen et al 11778354 - (D) FETTING Dissenting-in-part and Concurring-in-part SPAHN 101 101/103 COATS & BENNETT/SONY ERICSSON STRANGE, AARON N
2452 Ex Parte Wardwell 10529701 - (D) Per Curiam 103 BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C. NGUYEN, THU V
2452 Ex Parte Curtis et al 11483347 - (D) RUGGIERO 103 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & ASSOCIATES PC GOLABBAKHSH, EBRAHIM
2478 Ex Parte Kumar et al 11953810 - (D) WINSOR 103 LOTUS AND RATIONAL SOFTWARE SCIACCA, SCOTT M
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2685 Ex Parte Primous et al 11529709 - (D) SHIANG 103 Roylance, Abrams, Berdo & Goodman, L.L.P. -Hubbell NWUGO, OJIAKO K
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2837 Ex Parte Joachim et al 11661161 - (D) KALAN 102/103 VENABLE LLP CHAN, TSZFUNG JACKIE
2853 Ex Parte Laksin et al 10586098 - (D) KALAN 103 OSTROLENK FABER LLP SHAH, MANISlH S
2878 Ex Parte Feliss et al 10931679 - (D) KALAN 103 HGST C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP DOWLING, WILLIAM C
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3617 Ex Parte Gordon 11351790 - (D) SMEGAL 103 GORDON & JACOBSON, P.C. MCCARRY JR,ROBERT J
3657 Ex Parte Balsells 12614769 - (D) SPAHN 102/103 KLEIN, O'NEILL & SINGH, LLP BURCH, MELODY M
3689 Ex Parte Niethammer 10804683 - (D) FETTING 103 SCHIFF HARDIN LLP FISHER, PAUL R
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3781 Ex Parte Field 11748740 - (D) MORRISON 103 FAY SHARPE LLP WEAVER, SUE A
3788 Ex Parte Olsen et al 11512677 - (D) CAPP 103/obviousness-type double patenting Pauley Peterson & Erickson REYNOLDS, STEVEN ALAN
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC, MEDTRONIC CV LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L., AND MEDTRONIC VASCULAR GALWAY, LTD., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, AND EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES (U.S.), INC., Defendants-Appellees. 2013-1117 7,892,281 12/348,892 10/412,634 11/352,614 12/029,031 PROST SJ invalidity 102 35 U.S.C. § 120 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; GHERBI, SUZETTE JAIME J; SCHALL, MATTHEW WAYNE
Citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc., 609 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the district court noted that under § 120, a later filed application may claim priority based on an earlier filed application if, inter alia, the later filed application contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application.
Section 120 allows a later filed patent application to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date in the United States if, among other requirements,3 “it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application . . . submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 120. We recently clarified that the “specific reference” requirement mandates “each [intermediate] application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1352.
3 The other requirements, which are not at issue in this appeal, are that (1) the invention described in the new application must be disclosed in an application previously filed in the United States; (2) the application must be filed by the inventor(s) named in the previously filed application; and (3) the application must be co-pending with the earlier application at some point. 35 U.S.C. § 120; Encyclopaedia Britannica, 609 F.3d at 1349-50.
