Posts Tagged: "analogous art"

On October 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc. affirming most of a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated dual-aperture camera system patents owned by Corephotonics. The Federal Circuit nixed the patent owner’s arguments that asserted prior art references were not analogous art but remanded to the PTAB for further explanation of its ruling, as the Board may have misconstrued the pertinent problem addressed by one reference.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential opinions vacating and remanding decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In the first, the court said the PTAB abused its discretion in finding that Netflix, Inc. failed to articulate a field of endeavor to establish analogous art, vacating the Board’s decision in part. In the second, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s finding that Apple, Inc. had failed to prove Corephotonics’ patent claims unpatentable as obvious, holding that the evidence supported a different claim construction than that adopted by the Board in one decision, and because the Board’s decision in the second inter partes review (IPR) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In Airbus S.A.S v. Firepass Corporation, Appeal 2019-1803 (November 8, 2019), Airbus appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) reversal of the examiner’s rejection of new claims presented by Firepass in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,752 (“the ‘752 patent”). In particular, the inter partes reexam returned to the Court from a prior appeal (Airbus SAS v. Firepass Corp., 793 F.3d 1376 [Fed. Cir. 2015]) in which the Court vacated and remanded to the Board to consider Airbus’s challenge to the newly presented claims. Airbus disputes the Board’s finding that an asserted prior art reference, which just so happens to be a patent issued to the same inventor as the ‘752 patent, is nonanalogous art.

The issue was whether the disputed prior art is sufficiently “analogous” to the art of marking interface plates for it to be applied in a proper obviousness analysis. The Court held that even though an inventor may be aware of rock carving, engraved signage, or Prussian Blue methods, this does not mean that he would look to these methods when trying to improve markings for circuit board testers. The Court also found that the jury’s determination of validity, which tacitly concluded the disputed prior art was non-analogous, was supported by substantial evidence in the record.