Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
CAFC REVERSES PTO’S BROAD CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
| April 30, 2010
It is well-known that the PTO gives claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, both in original examination and in reexamination.
But in the recent case In re Suitco Surface, the CAFC found that the PTO’s claim construction had been too broad. The claimed invention was a floor covering, including a “material for finishing the top surface of the floor.” The PTO Board of Appeals construed the limitation to require “a material that is structurally suitable for placement on the top surface of a floor” (emphasis added). Based on this construction that the material need only be “suitable” for finishing the floor surface, the Board found that the claim was anticipated by each of two prior art references.
The CAFC found that the Board’s construction was contradicted by the plain wording of the claim and the specification: “A material cannot be finishing any surface unless it is the final layer on that surface. Otherwise, the material would not be ‘finishing’ the surface in any meaningful sense.” Rather than being merely “suitable” for finishing, the material must actually finish the floor surface, i.e., it must be the final layer. The case now goes back to the PTO for further consideration.
The patentee must be pleased to have won the appeal, but also distressed that the reexamination proceeding is not concluded – the patent is the subject of a District Court infringement action that has been stayed pending completion of this reexamination. The request for this reexamination was filed in April 2004. The District Court case was filed in 1996.
