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
Microchip Wins Second Reexamination Victory at Board
| September 2, 2010
Microchip Technology won today its second victory at the PTO Board of Appeals in less than a month.
Microchip’s U.S. Patent No. 6,483,183 claimed an integrated circuit package with an IC chip including a microcontroller having an n-bit data bus and up to n pins electrically coupled to the microcontroller. The examiner had determined that the claimed IC package was obvious over the prior art. Significantly, the examiner found that the “microcomputer” disclosed in the primary reference corresponded to the “microcontroller” recited in the pending claims.
The Board has now reversed the examiner, holding that one skilled in the art would construe “microcontroller” as having all the functions of a complete computer, essentially, a computer-on-a-chip that includes a central processing unit, a memory, and input/output interfaces. Since the microcomputer of the primary reference did not include a memory, it was not a complete computer and the prior art did not render Microchip’s claimed IC package obvious.
On August 11, the Board issued a very similar decision, reversing the rejection of the claims of Microchip’s U.S. Patent No. 5,847,450.
A third Microchip patent – U.S. Patent No. 6,696,316 – is related to the ‘183 and ‘450 patents and is also in reexamination. There, Microchip has appealed a final rejection of the claims, but briefs have not yet been filed. The ‘316 appeal raises a different issue from that considered in the ‘183 and ‘450 appeals: whether the claim term “microcontroller” may be construed as covering both a single-chip device and a multi-chip device.
Microchip sued Zilog in Arizona in 2005 for infringement of the three patents, and later filed a similar case against Luminary Micro in 2006. Both cases were stayed in 2006 pending completion of the reexaminations. The parties are obligated to report the completion of the reexaminations to the court. Since the ‘316 claims that remain in reexamination have a clearly different scope from the ‘183 and ‘450 claims, the court may wish to resume the litigation without waiting for a final decision regarding the ‘316 claims.
