ARTICLE
8 March 2021

PTAB's Determination Of Nonobviousness Is Reversed For Failure To Properly Understand The Claims At Issue

WT
Winston Taylor

Contributor

Whether you're leading the way, disrupting an industry, entering a new phase of growth, or launching a defining product—we're in the room with you. In the action. Sleeves rolled up.

With a rich history spanning both sides of the Atlantic, we are present in the major commercial centers that matter to our clients: the U.S., the U.K., Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Combining scale with the speed clients demand, our defining capabilities include major litigation, critical transactions, strategic IP, and private wealth.

Our team of over 1,400 lawyers works hand-in-hand across markets, sectors, practice areas, and client teams. All-in problem solvers, we bring the creativity to think differently, and the pragmatism to get things done when it counts the most.

Embedded in your business and sharing your ambition, we take the work personally. Shaping what we do and how we do it around your goals and needs, always one step ahead of the moment.

Canfield Scientific petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review of Melanoscan's patent relating to an imaging device used to detect skin cancer and other diseases as obvious over the prior art.
United States Intellectual Property

Canfield Scientific, Inc. v. Melanoscan, LLC, No. 2019-1927 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2021)

Canfield Scientific petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review of Melanoscan's patent relating to an imaging device used to detect skin cancer and other diseases as obvious over the prior art. The PTAB determined that all challenged claims were patentable. Petitioner appealed to the Federal Circuit, which overturned the PTAB's ruling.

Judge Newman wrote on behalf of the panel reversing the PTAB's decision as to the independent claims, finding both obvious over the prior art, and remanding as to the dependent claims. The court determined that the combination of the prior art presented by the petitioner, when considered by a person of ordinary skill in the art familiar with known methods and elements, would yield predictable results. In particular, the PTAB erred by failing to recognize that the independent claims at issue are not limited as to the location of the subject being imaged. As a result, the PTAB's reasoning for finding nonobviousness based upon a subject being imaged against a rear wall was not determinative. Accordingly, the court found the independent claims obvious and reversed the PTAB's ruling. As to the dependent claims, the court remanded to the PTAB because the PTAB had not separately analyzed the dependent claims upon holding the independent claims patentable.

Read the Federal Circuit's opinion here.

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.

[View Source]

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