In Re Antor Media Corp.
689 F.3d 1282
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Antor owns the U.S. Patent 5,734,961 on a method and apparatus for transmitting information from a central server to subscribers over a high data rate network.
- The PTO reexamined claims 1–29 and rejected them as anticipated and obvious over four references: Ghafoor, MINOS, Huang, and Barrett.
- The Board held that Ghafoor anticipated many claims and that the combination of references rendered the claims obvious; it also addressed enablement and undue experimentation.
- Antor argued that Ghafoor and MINOS were not enabling disclosures; Antor relied on Dr. Mercer’s declaration; the Board disagreed.
- This court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual determinations for substantial evidence; Antor’s appeal challenges anticipation and obviousness findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presumption of enablement for prior art | Antor argues printed publications lack presumption of enablement. | Board and Amgen framework extend enablement presumption to prior art publications. | Yes; prior art publications are presumptively enabling during prosecution. |
| Enablement of Ghafoor for ‘high data rate network’ | Ghafoor is forward-looking and not enabling for the asserted features. | Ghafoor discloses high data rate networks and interfaces suitable for the claimed invention. | Ghafoor is enabling for the claimed network features. |
| Enablement of data access/retrieval and ‘controller’ in Ghafoor | Ghafoor’s hierarchic object graph and controller details are insufficiently enabling. | Ghafoor teaches interaction with central controller and data retrieval; scope adequate for ordinary skill. | Ghafoor enables selecting/receiving information and the controller limitations. |
| Data related to plural information disclosure | Ghafoor does not disclose data related to plural information as required by the claims. | Ghafoor discloses summaries and browsable data related to server information. | Ghafoor discloses data related to plural information. |
| Obviousness of claims 1–29 (MINOS + Barrett) | MINOS may not disclose a high data rate network; Barrett lacks explicit high-rate network disclosure. | MINOS teaches high-bandwidth networks; Barrett teaches networked remote workstations; nexus for secondary considerations lacking. | MINOS discloses a high data rate network; combination with Barrett renders obvious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (presumption of enablement for used and unclaimed disclosures)
- In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (notice requirement and §132 sufficiency in anticipation analysis)
- In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (burden shifts to applicant to rebut presumed enablement)
- Novo Nordisk Pharm., Inc. v. Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 424 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enablement need not reflect actual reduction to practice)
- Elan Pharm., Inc. v. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Res., 346 F.3d 1051 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (standard for determining enablement and Wands considerations)
- Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1966) (basis for obviousness analysis)
- In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (substantial evidence standard for factual findings in anticipation)
- Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (prior art as basis for obviousness and secondary considerations)
- Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (enablement and reference disclosure considerations)
- Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nexus requirement for license-based nonobviousness arguments)