{"id":2021,"date":"2015-12-04T22:50:36","date_gmt":"2015-12-05T03:50:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/?p=2021"},"modified":"2015-12-04T22:50:36","modified_gmt":"2015-12-05T03:50:36","slug":"federal-circuit-approves-placing-burden-on-patent-owner-to-show-patentability-over-prior-art-cited-in-original-prosecution-history","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/?p=2021","title":{"rendered":"Federal Circuit Approves Placing Burden on Patent Owner to Show Patentability Over Prior Art Cited in Original Prosecution History"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Prolitec, Inc. v. Scentair Technologies, Inc.<\/em>, [2015-1020] (December 4, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,712,683 were unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7102 alone and\u00a0as obvious under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7103, and denying the patent owner’s motion to amend.<\/p>\n

Prolitic argued that the PTAB\u00a0construed the term “mounted” and “fixed in position” too broadly, arguing with the support of export testimony that the claims should be limited to the preferred embodiments which showed a single use device.\u00a0 The\u00a0Federal Circuit rejected these arguments, noting that the description specifically contemplated reusable devices as well.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit rejected Prolitic’s expert’s testimony that the invention related to single use devices with a permanent mounting, noting that an expert \u00a0“cannot rewrite the intrinsic record of the . . .patent to narrow the scope of the patent, saying\u00a0Phillips instructs that a court should discount any expert testimony \u2018that is clearly at odds\u00a0with the written record of the patent.<\/p>\n

Prolitic also appealed the PTAB’s denial of its motion to amend the claims to comport with its proffered constructions.\u00a0 Prolitec initially argued that it was improper for the Board to place the burden on the patentee to show patentability of the proposed claim amendments, but the Federal\u00a0Circuit\u00a0\u00a0disposed of this argument in Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015).\u00a0Prolitec then tried to argue that it did not have the burden to establish patentability over prior art references cited in the patent\u2019s original prosecution history because they are not prior art of record in the IPR.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit noted that the in MasterImage 3D, Inc. v. RealD Inc., IPR2015-00040 (PTAB July 15, 2015),\u00a0the Board stated, that \u201cprior art of record\u201d includes \u201cany material art in the prosecution history of the patent.\u201d\u00a0 The Federal Circuit found this construction reasonable:<\/p>\n

We conclude that the PTO\u2019s approach is a reasonable one at least in a case, like this one, in which the Board\u2019s denial of the motion to amend rested on a merits assessment of the entire record developed on the motion, no just on the initial motion itself. The Board\u2019s position\u2014that the patentee\u2019s burden on a motion to amend includes the burden to show patentability over prior art from the patent\u2019s original prosecution history\u2014is not in conflict with any statute or regulation. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to require the patentee to meet this burden.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Federal Circuit discerned no reversible error in the Board\u2019s denial of Prolitec\u2019s motion to amend.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Prolitec, Inc. v. Scentair Technologies, Inc., [2015-1020] (December 4, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision that claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,712,683 were unpatentable as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7102 alone and\u00a0as obvious under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7103, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2021","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4ZIpB-wB","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2021","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2021"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2021\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2022,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2021\/revisions\/2022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}