Federal Circuit affirms PTAB decision to invalidate MPHJ patent

MPHJ Tech. Invs. v. Ricoh Ams. Corp.,  (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2017) (Before Newman, Lourie, and O’Malley, J.) (Opinion for the court, Newman, J.) (Concurring in part, dissenting in part, O’Malley, J.)

The Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), on Inter Partes Review, to invalidate as anticipated or obvious all claims of a patent owned by MPHJ Technology Investments. MPHJ’s patent describes a system and method for scanning a physical document and “replicat[ing it] into other devices or applications or the internet,” for instance, by email.

The Board found all claims of the patent to be anticipated by a Xerox manual, anticipated by a Xerox patent and/or obvious in view of the Xerox patent and a second patent.  On appeal, MPHJ argued that the Board erred in construing the claims too broadly and that the correct, narrower construction would leave the claims free of the prior art.

According to MPHJ, the patent claims require “direct single-step transfer from the scanner or other peripheral device, to email or the Internet or other destination.”  MPHJ argued that the prior art did not accomplish this functionality in a single step. In response, the Board “held that the specification and claims do not require only a single-step operation.”

Before the Court, MPHJ argued that statements in the provisional application “‘expressly limited the scope of the invention’ to a one-step copying and sending process.”  These statements are not recited in the issued nonprovisional patent.  The Court agreed “that a provisional application can contribute to understanding the claims,” but said that, “[i]n this case, it is the deletion from the . . . [p]rovisional application that contributes understanding of the intended scope of the final application.” The Court also pointed out that the issued patent “describes the single-step operation as ‘optional.’”  Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Board’s claim construction.

Thus, the Board correctly construed the claims as not limited to a single-step operation, and its finding of anticipation was supported by substantial evidence. The Court declined to evaluate the Board’s alternative ruling of obviousness.

Judge O’Malley concurred in part and dissented in part. She agreed that the three system claims were anticipated but thought the five method claims were not.  The Xerox manual teaches a scanner in communication with a file server or print server and not a single-step interface between a scanner and an email system. She also found that the Xerox patent teaches moving previously scanned documents and not interfacing a scanner to email application software, whereas MPHJ’s method claims require “interfacing between . . . a multifunction peripheral and email application software.” (emphasis in original). In his view, the Xerox documents did not each provide all of the claimed method steps and did not anticipate the claims.

Disclosures in a provisional application that are not carried forward in a subsequent regular application may be treated as a surrender of the deleted subject matter, for example when construing the scope of affected claim language.

The Author

Joseph Robinson

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Joseph Robinson

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 1 Comment comments.

  1. Inventor Woes February 19, 2017 12:21 pm

    Of course it was anticipated by a Xerox manual. Pretty obvious.