The Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly determined that all 79 claims of a patent related to a computerized method for identifying and substituting information in an electronic document were invalid for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has held. Although the Board erred in its analysis by declining to apply a prosecution disclaimer limiting the patent’s claims such that they excluded those of a prior art patent, the court affirmed the Board’s determination based on its alternative holding that, even if the prosecution history disclaimer were accepted, the claims at issue still were unpatentable for obviousness (Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC, February 20, 2018, Newman, P.).
Case date: 20 February 2018
Case number: No. 2016-1249
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
