Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., <\/em>780 F.3d 1376, (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the Court affirmed the Board\u2019s finding that one Figure and certain passages in the description of the reference disclosed a limited number of elements and suggested combining them in a manner that anticipated the system claimed by Blue Calypso. Thus, \u201ca reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.\u201d This was an anticipation, without resort to obviousness, because the reference sufficiently disclosed making the combination, though not expressed a single embodiment or example.<\/p>\nThe Court agreed with Blue Calypso that the Board erred by rejecting two of the claims under \u00a7 112 because they used language (\u201ctag\u201d and \u201ctoken\u201d) not found in the specification. This was an unfortunate use of different words, in the specification and claims, to express similar concepts. Such poor drafting was unfortunate, but not a sufficient basis for invalidity. The Court reversed the Board\u2019s finding that these claims are unpatentable.<\/p>\n
Groupon appealed the Board\u2019s decision that a report, published on a web page by a graduate student, was not demonstrably a \u201cprinted publication\u201d and therefore could not be relied on as prior art to prove obviousness. The report was available on the student\u2019s personal webpage. The Court agreed with the Board that there was insufficient evidence to show that the report had ever been reviewed or downloaded. Moreover, posting on a personal web page was not to disseminate the report or make it accessible to the interested public as a \u201cprinted publication.\u201d<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Court affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part.<\/p>\n
Judge Schall wrote in dissent that, at most, the reference revealed a system with multiple tools that were capable of functioning together, but this was insufficient for a finding of anticipation. Thus, he opined that the Board\u2019s analysis was astray because it assumed what the prior art neither disclosed nor rendered inherent.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Court affirmed the Board\u2019s finding that one Figure and certain passages in the description of the reference disclosed a limited number of elements and suggested combining them in a manner that anticipated the system claimed by Blue Calypso. Thus, \u201ca reference may still anticipate if that reference teaches that the disclosed components or functionalities may be combined and one of skill in the art would be able to implement the combination.\u201d This was an anticipation, without resort to obviousness, because the reference sufficiently disclosed making the combination, though not expressed a single embodiment or example.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":109094,"featured_media":67002,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[7202,82,6998,228,3],"tags":[5017,3519,4854,2703,3815,2014,9967,33,4106,34,4313,8727],"yst_prominent_words":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66986"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/109094"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66986\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/67002"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66986"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=66986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}