IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Patent Trial & Appeal Board
Subscribe to Patent Trial & Appeal Board's Posts

USPTO Director to decide AIA petitions

by | Oct 23, 2025 | ,

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum on October 17, 2025, titled “Director Institution of AIA Trial Proceedings,” providing updated guidance to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board regarding the standards and procedures for instituting trial proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA), including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR).

Since the AIA’s enactment in 2012, the Board’s trial proceedings have become a central mechanism for challenging the validity of issued patents. The institution phase, in which the Board decides whether to proceed with a trial, has been shaped by a series of precedential decisions and evolving USPTO policies, particularly regarding discretionary denials under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 325(d).

The October 17, 2025, memorandum states that to “improve efficiency, consistency, and adherence to the statutory requirements for institution of trial, effective October 20, 2025, the Director will determine whether to institute trial for [IPR and PGR] proceedings.” If the Director determines that review is appropriate based on discretionary, merits-based, or other considerations, the USPTO will issue a summary notice granting institution for at least one challenged claim. If the Director determines review is not appropriate, the USPTO will issue a summary notice denying institution. For cases involving novel or complex issues, the Director may issue a detailed decision or refer the matter to one or more Board judges. A three-member Board panel will conduct all instituted reviews. The memorandum also notes that the USPTO has issued more than 580 prior decisions under interim processes that offer guidance on handling of discretionary factors.



read more

Power outage: Assignment doesn’t include future improvements

by | Oct 23, 2025 |

In a pair of related rulings, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed two decisions from two different agencies involving the same patent. The Court ultimately found that the International Trade Commission (ITC) correctly identified the owner of the asserted patent, and that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board correctly determined that the asserted patent was unpatentable. Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Case No. 23-1769 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Taranto, Chen, Stoll, JJ.); Causam Enterprises, Inc. v. ecobee Techs. ULC, Case No. 24-1958 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 15, 2025) (Taranto, Chen, Stoll, JJ.)

Causam initiated a complaint before the ITC, alleging that certain importers infringed its patent directed to technology for reducing electrical utilities power demands. The asserted patent claims priority as a continuation-in-part of a parent patent application. Although the face of the asserted patent lists Causam as the assignee, the parent application was assigned to another entity a decade earlier, along with “all patents which may be granted therefor” and “all divisions, reissues, continuations, and extensions thereof.” The assignment did not expressly include continuations-in-part.

The chief administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an initial determination that Causam was not the owner of the asserted patent and that no infringement had occurred. Causam subsequently requested a review of the initial determination by the full Commission. The Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings of noninfringement but declined to adopt the findings regarding ownership. Causam appealed.

Ownership of a patent is a threshold requirement for asserting Article III standing, and the complainant bears the burden of establishing standing in the pleadings. On appeal, the Commission and the ITC respondents argued that ownership of the asserted patent did not need to be decided for standing purposes as Causam had pleaded ownership in its complaint. The Federal Circuit disagreed, emphasizing that, as an Article III court, it is required to consider Article III’s standing requirements, even if the ITC is not. Because the issue turned on contract interpretation and did not require underlying factual findings, the Federal Circuit reviewed the standing issue de novo.

The Federal Circuit ultimately determined that the omission of the term “continuation-in-part” from the assignment agreement meant that the asserted patent was not included in the assignment and thus Causam had ownership of the asserted patent. The ITC respondents argued that the inclusion of “continuation” language was sufficient to encompass both continuations and continuations-in-part. The Court rejected this argument, noting that adopting such a position would effectively “insert words into the contract that the parties never agreed to,” particularly because continuations and continuations-in-part (which by definition include new matter not found in the priority application) are widely understood to be distinct concepts within patent law.

The Federal Circuit noted that such a distinction is especially significant in the context of patent assignments. In the case of continuations, recordation of the assignment of the parent patent or application is effective as to a child patent. In contrast, the same is not true for a continuation-in-part, meaning that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Collateral estoppel remains inapplicable to unchallenged IPR claims

by | Aug 14, 2025 |

Returning to its decision in Kroy IP, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving undisturbed its prior opinion that collateral estoppel does not apply to the assertion of claims from a patent, even when other patentably indistinct claims from that patent have been found unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Case No. 23-1359 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (per curiam) (Moore, J., concurring) (Dyk, J., dissenting).

Kroy sued Groupon for patent infringement, and Groupon subsequently filed two IPR petitions. The Board ultimately found 21 of the asserted claims unpatentable. Kroy amended its complaint to remove those 21 claims and proceed only with claims that were not at issue in the IPR proceedings. Groupon moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Kroy was collaterally estopped from asserting the remaining claims because of the Board’s prior IPR rulings finding other patentably indistinct claims unpatentable. The district court agreed with Groupon, finding that the remaining asserted claims were not materially different from the unpatentable claims in terms of validity and granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. Kroy appealed.

The Federal Circuit held that a Board determination finding certain patent claims unpatentable under the preponderance of the evidence standard did not collaterally estop Kroy from asserting other unreviewed claims of the same patent in district court litigation against Groupon. Groupon subsequently petitioned for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, both of which the Federal Circuit denied per curiam.

Chief Judge Moore, joined by Judge Stoll, concurred in the decision. In her concurring opinion, Judge Moore explained that collateral estoppel does not apply where differing standards of proof exist (namely, the preponderance of evidence standard used by the Board versus the clear and convincing evidence standard applied in district courts) because this difference can materially affect a patent’s validity determination. She emphasized that collateral estoppel should apply consistently in patent cases and cautioned against deviating from the established collateral estoppel standards. Judge Moore also noted that policy concerns are mitigated by the ability to file a second IPR petition, because the Board is likely to grant review where a petition raises a substantially similar question of invalidity.

Judge Dyk, joined by Judge Hughes, dissented from the decision. The dissent advocated departing from the traditional burden-of-proof rule applicable in the collateral estoppel context to avoid duplicative litigation regarding patent validity. The dissent argued that the majority opinion conflicted with the Federal Circuit’s 2018 opinion in XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, which held that collateral estoppel extends between Board decisions and district court proceedings in pending or co-pending actions. According to the dissent, the majority’s approach permits repeated litigation of the validity of patent claims previously found unpatentable in IPR proceedings affirmed on appeal. The dissent expressed concern that applying collateral estoppel in this manner would enable patentees to evade the preclusive effect of adverse IPR [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Game over: Prior interference doesn’t preclude IPR proceeding

by | Jul 31, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, concluding that the Board’s decision to not apply interference estoppel fell within the general rule of unreviewability. IGT v. Zynga Inc., Case No. 23-2262 (Fed. Cir. July 22, 2025) (Prost, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

IGT owns an expired patent that addresses the need for gaming machines, such as slot machines and video poker machines, to securely communicate over a public network. The patent was issued in January 2007 from an application filed in April 2002 and published in August 2002. Zynga filed a patent application on August 21, 2003, that included claims copied from IGT’s published application.

In March 2010, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (predecessor of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, which Congress created in 2011) declared an interference proceeding between Zynga’s application and IGT’s patent. During the interference proceeding, Zynga argued IGT’s patent was obvious over three pieces of prior art. IGT argued that Zynga lacked standing because the claims in Zynga’s application were unpatentable for a lack of written description. The Board granted IGT’s motion for judgment on the “threshold issue” that Zynga’s application lacked adequate written description support, terminated the interference with a judgment against Zynga, and dismissed the motion that the claims were unpatentable as moot.

In April 2021, IGT sued Zynga alleging infringement of six patents, including the patent that was subject to the interference proceeding. Zynga filed an IPR petition for that patent, asserting obviousness based on new prior art. In its preliminary response, IGT argued that the Board should deny institution based on interference estoppel under 37 C.F.R. § 41.127(a)(1) because Zynga could have raised the newly asserted art in the interference proceeding. The Board rejected IGT’s interference estoppel arguments because:

  • The interference was terminated based on the “threshold issue” of lack of written description and therefore the Board did not analyze or decide any issues of unpatentability.
  • It would be unfair to estop Zynga, and to the extent that estoppel applied, the Board waived its application under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b).

IGT requested rehearing and precedential opinion panel review, arguing that interference estoppel barred institution. The PTO Director affirmed the Board’s decision, stating that interference estoppel under § 41.127 did not apply because IPR proceedings are governed by 37 C.F.R. pt. 42, which does not incorporate Part 41 or its estoppel provisions. The PTO Director also noted that the Board’s termination was based on a threshold issue. The Board proceeded with the review and ultimately concluded that all the challenged claims were unpatentable as obvious. IGT appealed.

IGT argued that the Board and PTO Director erred in ruling that interference estoppel did not bar the petition and challenged the Board’s holding that the claims would have been obvious over the newly asserted prior art.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the interference estoppel determination fell within the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Applicant-admitted prior art may inform but can’t be basis for IPR challenges

by | Jul 24, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that while applicant-admitted prior art (AAPA) may be cited as evidence of general background knowledge in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, it cannot serve as the basis for an IPR ground. The Court also confirmed that the petitioner had Article III standing to cross-appeal based on concrete plans for future activity. Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Case No. 23-1864 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Cunningham, JJ.)

Shockwave Medical owns a patent directed to treating atherosclerosis using a balloon catheter in combination with shockwaves generated by electrodes and a pulse generator. The patent specification acknowledged that “over-the-wire angioplasty balloon catheters” were well known in the art. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (CSI) filed an IPR petition asserting that it would have been obvious to modify a European patent application with the angioplasty balloon catheter disclosed in the AAPA.

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board found all but one claim unpatentable as obvious, relying on the AAPA solely as evidence of background knowledge. Both parties appealed.

Shockwave challenged the Board’s reliance on the AAPA, arguing that 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) prohibits using AAPA as a basis for an IPR petition. The Federal Circuit disagreed, reaffirming its prior decisions in Qualcomm I and Qualcomm II. In Qualcomm I, the Court explained that AAPA cannot be the basis of a ground in an IPR petition but can be evidence of background knowledge. In Qualcomm II, the Court found that the Board erred in determining that the use of AAPA was proper when the petitioner expressly included AAPA in one of its grounds. Relying on these decisions, the Court explained that while AAPA cannot form the basis of a ground in an IPR petition, it may be used to demonstrate the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art and to supply missing claim limitations.

Shockwave pointed to a table in the Board’s final written decision listing AAPA under “reference(s)/basis” as evidence that the Board improperly relied on AAPA as a ground. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, distinguishing Qualcomm II and emphasizing that the petitioner, not the Board, defines the grounds for review. Because CSI did not rely on AAPA as a ground, its use was permissible.

CSI cross-appealed the Board’s finding that one claim was not obvious. Shockwave challenged CSI’s standing, but the Federal Circuit found that CSI had Article III standing because it had concrete plans to begin clinical trials and because of Shockwave’s public statements suggesting it would assert the patent. The Court concluded that these facts created a substantial risk of future infringement.

On the merits, the Federal Circuit agreed with CSI that the Board erred by failing to consider the prior art as a whole. The Court reiterated that the obviousness inquiry requires evaluating the combined teachings of the prior art, not individual references in isolation. Finding no evidence to support the Board’s conclusion, the Court reversed the Board’s decision as to the remaining [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Prosecution history primacy: “Consisting essentially of” means what applicant said it meant

by | Jul 10, 2025 | ,

In a decision that underscores the primacy of prosecution history to determine claim scope, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s interpretation of the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of,” holding that the patentee’s actions during prosecution narrowed the claims beyond the conventional construction. Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC, Case No. 23-2173 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2025) (Scarsi, Dist. J., by designation; Taranto, Stoll, JJ.)

The case involved a method for reducing eye redness using low concentrations of brimonidine, a vasoconstrictive compound. Eye Therapies owns a patent that claims methods of administering brimonidine “consisting essentially of” the active ingredient. During inter partes review (IPR), the Board applied the typical construction of that transitional phrase, allowing for the presence of other active agents as long as they did not materially affect the invention’s basic and novel properties. Based on that reading, the Board found the claims obvious over prior art references that disclosed brimonidine in combination with other drugs. On appeal, Eye Therapies argued that the Board’s construction was too broad and inconsistent with the prosecution history.

The Federal Circuit agreed. Although “consisting essentially of” is generally understood to permit unlisted ingredients that don’t materially affect the invention, the Court emphasized that this meaning can be overridden by the intrinsic record. In this case, the applicant amended the claims to avoid prior art and repeatedly argued that the invention involved only brimonidine, with no other active agents. During the original prosecution, the examiner allowed the claims on that basis. The Court found these statements to be definitional, particularly in light of the applicant’s use of “i.e.” to equate the claim language with a brimonidine-only method. Given the clarity and consistency of the applicant’s position, the Court concluded that the prosecution history required a narrower reading than the one the Board used based on the phrase’s conventional meaning.

The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the patent specification disclosed embodiments containing additional active agents. That alone, however, did not justify a broader construction. The narrowing amendment came after the specification was drafted, and the Court reiterated that not every embodiment must fall within the scope of the claims, particularly when the claims have been narrowed during prosecution. The Court also noted that other embodiments in the specification were fully consistent with the narrower interpretation. Taken together, these factors reinforced the conclusion that the applicant’s prosecution statements – not the broader illustrative disclosures – defined the proper scope of the claims.

The Federal Circuit distinguished its 2009 decision in Ecolab v. FMC, where it declined to apply prosecution history disclaimer despite similar language. In Ecolab, the patentee initially stated that peracetic acid was the “sole antimicrobial agent,” but the examiner clarified that “consisting essentially of” did not mean “solely.” The applicant never repeated the statement and secured allowance on other grounds. The specification in Ecolab also described compositions that included other known antimicrobial agents, which supported the broader interpretation. In contrast, the applicant here amended the claims, consistently [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Seeing double? Director instructs Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution

by | Jul 2, 2025 |

The acting director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to institute two inter partes review (IPR) petitions that challenged the same claims. The acting director determined that the two petitions primarily differed with respect to claim construction. In a decision designated as “informative,” he authorized the Board to resolve claim construction pre-institution in view of the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide’s (CTPG) direction that “one petition should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most situations.” CrowdStrike, Inc. v. GoSecure, Inc., IPR2025-00068; -00070 (PTAB June 25, 2025) (Stewart, Act. Dir.) The PTO designates a decision as informative when it provides “norms on recurring issues, guidance on issues of first impression to the Board, guidance on Board rules and practices, and guidance on issues that may develop through analysis of recurring issues in many cases.”

CrowdStrike submitted two IPR petitions that challenged the same claims of GoSecure’s patent. The Board instituted both IPRs. GoSecure requested director review, asserting that instituting both petitions was an abuse of the Board’s discretion. On review, the acting director determined that the Board abused its discretion in view of the CTPG’s direction.

The acting director concluded that the two petitions did not reflect an exception to the CTPG’s direction. He determined that CrowdStrike’s petitions were primarily distinguished by the constructions applied to a claim term. The acting director explained that the Board should have construed the term at issue prior to granting institution, concluding that the Board’s institution decision amounted to improper expansion of CrowdStrike’s permitted word count and placed a substantial and unnecessary burden on the Board and GoSecure that could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. The acting director vacated and remanded the Board’s institution decision.

The acting director also instructed the Board that the patent owner should be allowed to “submit whatever arguments are necessary for the panel to make a claim construction determination” even if the patent owner has not addressed the issue.



read more

CRISPR Clarity: Enablement Is Analyzed Differently Under §§ 102 and 112

by | Jun 18, 2025 | ,

In a decision underscoring the distinct standards governing enablement under §§ 102 and 112, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that a prior art reference was enabling for purposes of anticipation, even in the absence of working examples. Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Synthego Corp., Case Nos. 23-2186; -2187 (Fed. Cir. June 11, 2025) (Prost, Linn, Reyna, JJ.)

The case centers on CRISPR, the gene-editing technology that has reshaped the frontiers of biology and biotechnology. Agilent owns patents that claim chemically modified guide RNAs (gRNAs) designed to improve stability and performance in CRISPR-Cas systems. Synthego filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition asserting that the patents were unpatentable. The Board found all claims unpatentable, relying on a 2014 publication by Pioneer Hi-Bred that disclosed similar modified gRNAs. Agilent appealed.

Agilent challenged the Board’s finding that the prior art was enabling, arguing that Pioneer Hi-Bred merely proposed a research plan without demonstrating which specific modifications would yield functional gRNAs. Agilent emphasized that the reference lacked working examples and disclosed numerous nonfunctional sequences, contending that a skilled artisan would not have been able to identify a successful embodiment without undue experimentation. It also argued that the nascent state of CRISPR technology in 2014 compounded the unpredictability, making the reference non-enabling. In support, Agilent relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, where the Supreme Court invalidated a broad genus claim for failing to enable its full scope.

The Federal Circuit was not persuaded. The Court drew a clear distinction between enablement under § 112 (which governs patent validity) and enablement under § 102 (which governs anticipation). The Court explained that the bar is lower for the latter, and that a prior art reference need only enable a single embodiment within the scope of the claim. While Amgen involved § 112, the Court emphasized that this case turned on § 102, where the standard is less demanding.

The Federal Circuit grounded this distinction in both the statutory text and the underlying purpose of the respective provisions. Statutorily, § 112 requires that a patent specification enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to “make and use” the invention. Section 102, by contrast, contains no such requirement. This divergence reflects a difference in purpose: § 112 ensures that the patentee does not claim more than they have taught, thereby preventing overbroad monopolies. As the Supreme Court explained in Amgen, “[t]he more a party claims, the broader the monopoly it demands, the more it must enable.” But the Federal Circuit emphasized that the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Amgen was rooted in the patentee’s burden to support the full scope of a genus claim under § 112. That concern, the Court explained, does not apply in the § 102 context, where the question is not how much the prior art claims, but whether it teaches enough for a skilled artisan to practice at least one embodiment without undue [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Speculation of Harm Isn’t Standing: Not Every Adverse Board Decision Is Ticket to Appeal

by | Jun 12, 2025 | ,

After assessing whether a patent owner had standing to appeal the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final written decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found no injury in fact to support Article III jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. Dolby Labs. Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, Case No. 23-2110 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2025) (Moore, Clevenger, Chen, JJ.)

Dolby owns a patent covering a prediction method involving an in-loop filter. Unified Patents, claiming to be the sole real party in interest (RPI), filed an inter partes review (IPR) challenging several patent claims as anticipated and obvious. Dolby contested the challenge, identifying nine additional entities it argued should have been named as RPIs (alleged RPIs). The Board declined to rule on Dolby’s inclusion, however, and proceeded with Unified as the sole RPI.

In its final written decision, the Board found that Unified failed to establish the unpatentability of any challenged claims. Consistent with the US Patent & Trademark Office’s practice, it also declined to address the RPI dispute, finding it immaterial – there was no evidence the alleged RPIs were estopped from filing their own IPRs later or that Unified had advantageously or strategically omitted them. Dolby appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that when it reviews final Board decisions, its jurisdiction is constrained by Article III’s “Cases” and “Controversies” requirement. To establish standing, an appellant must demonstrate:

  • A concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent, not speculative.
  • A causal link between the injury and the appellee’s challenged conduct.
  • A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable ruling.

Dolby asserted standing to appeal the Board’s refusal to address the RPI dispute based on three grounds:

Its statutory right to appeal as a “dissatisfied” party under 35 U.S.C. § 319.

  • The denial of its right to information under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
  • An injury in fact arising from potential breaches of license agreements by the alleged RPIs and possible conflicts of interest involving the Board’s administrative patent judges.

The Federal Circuit rejected Dolby’s argument that it had a right to appeal based solely on dissatisfaction with the Board’s decision. The Court explained that the right to appeal a Board decision under the America Invents Act (AIA) requires Article III standing. The Court also dismissed Dolby’s argument for a statutory right to RPI information, finding that the AIA does not create an informational right. The Court explained that unlike statutes such as the Federal Advisory Committee Act or the Federal Election Campaign Act, which expressly grant public access to information, the AIA lacks a public access provision and explicitly limits judicial review of IPR-related determinations, including RPI disclosures.

As to Dolby’s right to appeal the Board decision, the Federal Circuit found Dolby’s argument too speculative to establish standing, citing four key deficiencies:

Dolby failed to assert that any alleged RPIs were party to license agreements, undermining its claim of potential breach.



read more

X-Ray Vision: Court Sees Through Implicit Claim Construction

by | Jun 5, 2025 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s final determination that challenged patent claims were not unpatentable, finding that the Board’s decision relied on an erroneous implicit claim construction. Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., Case No. 23-2211 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2025) (Dyk, Prost, JJ.; Goldberg, Chief Distr. J., sitting by designation).

Zeiss owns a patent related to X-ray imaging systems that incorporate projection magnification. Sigray filed a petition requesting inter partes review (IPR) of all claims in the patent. After institution, the Board issued its final written decision, which declined to hold any of the challenged claims unpatentable. Sigray appealed.

On appeal, Sigray argued that the claims were unpatentable based on a single prior art reference, Jorgensen. The Jorgensen reference “describes a system that uses an X-ray source to generate an X-ray beam, which then passes through a sample before being received by a detector.” Sigray argued that Jorgensen anticipated or rendered the challenged claims obvious. The parties agreed that Jorgensen explicitly disclosed all the limitations of the independent claim except for one reading “a magnification of the projection X ray stage . . . between 1 and 10 times.”

The parties’ arguments centered on whether the magnification limitation was inherently disclosed in Jorgensen. The Board concluded that “viewing the record as a whole, . . . [Sigray] has not shown persuasively that Jorgensen inherently discloses projection magnification within the claimed range. Sigray argued, and the Federal Circuit agreed, that the Board’s findings incorrectly relied on a flawed understanding of the claimed range. In Sigray’s view, “the Board implicitly and incorrectly construed the limitation ‘between 1 and 10’ to exclude unspecified, small divergence resulting in projection magnifications only slightly greater than 1.” This was illustrated by the Board’s determination that Sigray “failed to show that the . . . X-ray beam in Jorgensen diverges enough to result in projection magnification between 1 and 10 times.”

The Federal Circuit found that the Board’s use of the term “enough” indicated that the evidence it relied on supported a finding of some divergence in the X-ray beams. Because the beams were not completely parallel, the Court reasoned that some magnification necessarily resulted, and that even a miniscule amount (as disclosed in the prior art) fell within the claimed magnification range of 1 to 10. Since the Board made only one evidence-supported finding relevant to anticipation, the Court reversed on the independent claim and two dependent claims without remand. However, the Court remanded the case to the Board to determine whether the three remaining challenged claims, which recited further material limitations, would have been obvious.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES