12/8/2022 0 Comments View ptab filed documents![]() The Federal Circuit, for its part, emphatically and unequivocally held that AAPA does not constitute “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” under § 311(b) such that it may form “the basis” of a ground in inter partes review. In this case, the AAPA played such a significant role in the validity challenge that it formed “the basis” of the ground. The Guidance concludes that AAPA, like knowledge of a skilled artisan, may be used to include supplying a missing claim limitation or supporting a motivation to combine. However, the Guidance reads Federal Circuit precedent to permit the use of AAPA in inter partes review as evidence of the general knowledge of a skilled artisan. The Court noted that the Guidance agrees with Qualcomm that AAPA does not fall within “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” under § 311(b). ![]() On appeal, the Court began by discussing, inter alia, the guidance of the Director of the USPTO in “Treatment of Statements of the Applicant in the Challenged Patent in Inter Partes Reviews Under § 311(b)” (Guidance). Having decided that Apple’s use of AAPA was proper under the statute, the Board found that the AAPA in combination with Majcherczak rendered the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. § 311(b), “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications” includes AAPA because it is prior art contained in a patent. The Board disagreed, concluding that under 35 U.S.C. Qualcomm argued that such patent owner admissions cannot be used to challenge the validity of a patent in inter partes review. Qualcomm conceded that the combination of AAPA and Majcherczak teaches each element of the challenged claims, but challenged Apple’s use of AAPA in the IPR proceeding. In ground 1, Apple challenged the claims as unpatentable under § 103 in view of three prior art references (two patents and a printed publication).Īpple’s second ground relied on applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), namely, Figure 1 of the Qualcomm patent and its accompanying description in the patent, in view of a prior art patent publication (Majcherczak). The patent described avoiding problems associated with the prior art solution, viz., by adding a feedback network to increase detection speed.Īpple filed two IPR petitions against Qualcomm’s patent based on the same two grounds but each challenging different sets of claims. The patent described a prior art method to remedy the stray current problem, disclosing that power-up/down detectors can be used to generate a power on/off-control (POC) signal internally that instructs the input/output devices when the core devices are shut down. When the core devices are powered down, the connection between the core and input/output network through the level shifters could lead to problems, e.g., stray currents causing the level shifters to trigger the input/output devices for transmission resulting in erroneous output signals from the circuit. Qualcomm’s patent described “level shifters” that communicate between the input/output devices and the core devices. ![]() ![]() raised a § 103 challenge to the claims at issue “ on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” § 311(b) (emphasis added by Court).īy way of background, Qualcomm was the owner of a patent directed to integrated circuit devices with power detection circuits for systems with multiple supply voltages. The Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for determination whether the IPR petition of Apple, Inc. VIEW PTAB FILED DOCUMENTS TRIAL2020-1558, 2020-1559, the Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) erred in relying in part on AAPA to find claims of Qualcomm, Inc.’s patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, held that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) did not constitute “prior art consisting of patents or printed publications,” as required in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, under 35 U.S.C. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |