01/31/2014
Category: Priority
 
 
 
By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor   
 
TitleEnOcean GMBH v. Face Int’l Corp., No. 2012-1645 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 31, 2014).
IssuesThis appeal concerns two sets of EnOcean’s claims, the receiver claims and the means-plus-function claims, and presents two main issues: [1] whether the Board erred in finding that the receiver claims invoke § 112, ¶ 6; and [2] whether the Board erred in finding that both sets of claims are not entitled to claim priority to the German and PCT applications [on the grounds of inadequate structural support in the parent applications].
EnOcean at *2 (text added).
HoldingsFor the foregoing reasons, we hold: [1] that the receiver claims in EnOcean’s application do not invoke § 112, ¶ 6 [because the term “receiver” connotes sufficiently adequate structure]; [and] [2] that the “means for receiving” limitations found in EnOcean’s means-plus-function claims are adequately supported by the written descriptions found in the German and PCT applications for purposes of claiming priority; and […] that the “receiver” limitations found in EnOcean’s receiver claims are adequately supported by the written descriptions found in the German and PCT applications for purposes of claiming priority [because a specific structure of a “receiver”/“receiver means” is not required, since said terms have a well-known structural meaning.].
Id. at *11-12 (text added).
 
01/24/2014
Category: Priority
 
 
 
By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor  
 
TitleMedtronic Corevalve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., No. 2013-1117 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2013).
IssueMedtronic’s appeal asks us to determine whether the district court erred in holding that the ’281 patent could not claim the benefit of an earlier priority date for failure to comply with the requirements of both 35 U.S.C. §§ 119 and 120 [for failure to include intermediate applications in the priority claim].
Medtronic Corevalve, LLC at *7 (text added).
HoldingBecause Medtronic failed to specifically reference each earlier filed application in the intervening applications in the chain of priority for the ’281 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the district court was correct to limit the priority date of the patent to no earlier than April 10, 2003 and thereafter find the Asserted Claims invalid as anticipated.
Id. at *14.
 
© 2000-2014, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy