ARTICLE
11 December 2015

Close Enough - Structure-Less Prior Art Found To Be Enabling

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
Challenging the novelty of a patent or patent application often requires a showing that the invention was publicly disclosed prior to the filing date of the patent.
United States Intellectual Property

Challenging the novelty of a patent or patent application often requires a showing that the invention was publicly disclosed prior to the filing date of the patent. The prior art disclosure rarely discusses the invention in the exact same words as used in the patent, so there is often a question of when the prior art sufficiently "discloses the invention" to invalidate the claims of the patent. The case of Silicon Laboratories, Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corporation, Case IPR2014-00809, (Final Written Decision, October 21, 2015) draws that line well for a particular claim term that was disclosed functionally in the prior art, but not physically.

The Silicon Labs case is a lengthy opinion where several issues are discussed at length and, ultimately, decided in favor of Petitioner Silicon Labs. One of these issues is whether the prior art disclosed a "frequency conversion circuit," which the PTAB construed as "a circuit for converting the frequency of the input RF signal to an intermediate frequency signal having an intermediate frequency." The construction therefore requires a physical component (the circuit) and a functional component ("for converting the frequency of the input RF signal to an intermediate frequency signal having an intermediate frequency.").

Cresta, the patent owner, argued the prior art was "skeletal at best" in its disclosure of the physical frequency conversion circuit. At the same time, Cresta did not dispute that the prior art disclosed the function as construed by the PTAB. The PTAB did not specifically dispute whether the disclosure of the physical circuit was "skeletal" or more, but held no detailed structure was required:

Petitioner is entitled to presume the enablement of the prior art, i.e., the circuit associated with the outdoor unit. The burden of production as to whether the circuit must be disclosed in order for the disclosure to be enabled is on the Patent Owner.

The PTAB then determined Cresta failed to meet its burden of production, focusing on its expert declaration:

Paragraph 66 of the Opris Declaration (Ex. 2003) is a conclusory denial, i.e., "Thomson does not teach the circuitry." Patent Owner has not persuaded us that Petitioner failed to meet its burden of persuasion.

Following a review of the other claim terms, the PTAB cancelled as unpatentable all claims of the asserted patent.

Takeaway

The Silicon Labs case has many moving parts, but they all stem from the claim construction given to the term "frequency conversion circuit." This term was construed broadly rather than Cresta's more narrow proposed construction, which ultimately led to it being determined to be disclosed in the prior art. Despite losing the construction issue, Cresta could have provided more than conclusory statements in its expert declaration to show the lack of enablement in the prior art reference. The lack of any such evidence was ultimately fatal for Cresta, at least for this claim term.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More